The Montezuma County commission voted Monday to let the courts decide whether or not they can require that safety features be installed on a private bridge before approving a controversial subdivision near the West Fork of the Dolores River.

At issue is a one-lane, private bridge that does not meet county standards, but is the preferred access point to a 17.15-acre riverfront parcel owned by Cohaco Building Specialties, of Arizona.

Cohaco wants to subdivide the lot into two plats, and received a variance to do so from the commission on Feb. 28, contingent upon the installation of approach guardrails, several signs warning of the one-lane bridge’s 20-ton weight limit, and the improvement of sway braces supporting the bridge, which was built in 1970.

The planning commission had recommended on Dec. 16 that the county reject the subdivision because the one-lane bridge was structurally sound but did not meet current standards set by the American Association of Highway Testing, according to engineer Bud Roach. Roach reported that the bridge was too narrow and unsafe because of a steep vertical pitch down to the river on either side of the approach.

The land-use code requires that all subdivisions in Montezuma County have direct access route that links to a county road. The responsibility for bringing that access up to county standards falls to the developer.

The county relies on qualified engineer reports regarding safety issues for public roadways and those in proposed subdivisions on a case-by-case basis.

In a compromise, the county agreed to a variance, but Cohaco’s attorney, Erin Johnson, balked Monday at the resolution that was worked out during a Feb. 28 hearing. The resolution would have allowed the subdivision to go forward pending the necessary improvements, which would cost the developer an estimated $5,000.

"I thought that the issue was resolved with the variance approval, but the county said that it would not sign off the plat until guardrails were installed," Johnson said. "It is not fair to require the applicant to do that."

On Jan. 14, after the planning commission recommended the subdivision be rejected because the bridge failed to meet county standards for width and stability, as reported by Roach, Johnson and Cohaco reacted with a lawsuit against the county’s comprehensive land-use code .

The complaint, which challenged the code as "riddled with procedural problems (that) constitutes severe violations of state and federal law," was thought to have lost steam after the variance was granted, but Johnson vowed Monday to again revive the matter in court if a resolution was not made soon.

"If we go back in court on this I’ll file against the whole land-use plan," Johnson said. "People need to know what is required of them."

The commission’s attorney, Bob Slough, argued that the commission is responsible for insuring that access points to subdivisions the commission approves can handle increased traffic and meet safety requirements.

"Cohaco chose to use that bridge for access into the subdivision and that brings responsibility to the county," Slough said. "They can’t approve a subdivision without insuring it will have safe access to the county road; otherwise someone who buys a lot from Cohaco could drive over the steep drop off. That puts the county out on a limb for potential liability for approving something that they knew was dangerous. It is a safety issue."

Johnson said that her client should not have to pay the total amount for improvements to the bridge, arguing that other landowners who use the bridge should also help pay.

"It is not my client’s responsibility to get other landowners to chip in," she said, adding that legal access should not be coupled with safe access.

The commissioners would not back down, however.